mishnah

MISHNAH: Pesaḥ which he slaughtered not for its purpose, received [the blood], transported it, or poured it, not for its purpose, or for its purpose and not for its purpose, or not for its purpose and for its purpose, is disqualified. What is “for its purpose and not for its purpose”? As Pesaḥ and as well-being offering. “Not for its purpose and for its purpose”? As well-being offering and as Pesaḥ.

MISHNAH: If he slaughtered it for those who cannot not eat it, for those who did not subscribe to it, for the uncircumcised, or for the impure, it is disqualified. For those who eat it and those who will not eat it, for those who subscribed to it and those who did not subscribe to it, for the circumcised and the uncircumcised, or for the pure and the impure, it is qualified. If one slaughtered it before noon it is disqualified since it was said about it: between the evenings. If one slaughtered it before the daily evening sacrifice it is qualified, on condition that somebody stir the blood until after the blood of the daily evening sacrifice was poured; but if the blood was poured it is qualified.

Rebbi Eleazar said, the Mishnah if he slaughtered it for those who eat it, but it was covered by those who eat it and those who cannot eat it. But it is disqualified if from the start he slaughtered it so that it should be covered by those who eat it and those who cannot eat it.

Rebbi Yose said, from that of Rebbi Eleazar one may deduce two [conclusions]. Since Rebbi Eleazar said, the Mishnah if he slaughtered it for those who eat it, but it was covered by those who eat it and those who cannot eat it. But it is disqualified if from the start he slaughtered for those who eat it and it was covered by those who eat it and those who cannot eat it. Then its disqualification is of others and you can pick out the disqualified from the qualified, and you are saying so? But it must be the following, “for its purpose and not for its purpose”, applies to all sacrifices; “for those who eat it and those who cannot eat it” applies only to the Pesaḥ. Rebbi Abin said, there are others. “For its purpose and not for its purpose”, applies to all services; “for those who eat it and those who cannot eat it” applies only to slaughtering.

For those who eat it in volumes of an olive and those who cannot eat it in volumes of an olive, it is qualified. For those who eat it in volumes of an olive and those who cannot eat it in volumes of half an olive, it is qualified a fortiori. For those who eat it in volumes of half an olive and those who cannot eat it in volumes of half an olive? Where do we hold? If intent was qualifying, intent is disqualifying. If intent is not disqualifying then the intent should be qualifying. Rebbi Yose said, a Mishnah implies that the intent in qualifying, as we have stated there: “To eat half the volume of an olive and to burn half the volume of an olive is qualified since slaughter and burning do not combine.” If he slaughtered it that half of its group should be covered, Rebbi Jonah disqualifies. It is as grabbing the cover for these and those. Since these are not covered, neither are those covered. Rebbi Yose said, it is qualified. During the second cycle, Rebbi Yose retracted. Rebbi Phineas said to him, did the rabbi not teach us, it is qualified. He told him, is this fixed for you by nails?

“If one slaughtered it before noon it is disqualified,” [after noontime] immediately it is qualified. “If one slaughtered it before the daily sacrifice it is qualified.” It was stated thus: One could think that if Pesaḥ preceded the daily sacrifice, the daily sacrifice could not be delayed. The verse says, do, adding. Rebbi Abun said, the Mishnah implies that the Pesaḥ itself is qualified. If you would say, it is disqualified, it would be as if it did not precede.

MISHNAH: One who slaughters the Pesaḥ on leavened matter transgresses a prohibition; Rebbi Jehudah says, also the daily sacrifice. Rebbi Simeon says, the Pesaḥ on the Fourteenth, if for its purpose, he is liable, not for its purpose he is not liable. All other sacrifices, whether for their purposes or not for their purposes, he is not liable. On the holiday, for its purpose he is not liable, not for its purpose he is liable; for all other sacrifices, whether for their purposes or not for their purposes, he is liable except for the purification offering which he slaughtered not for its purpose.

MISHNAH: The Pesaḥ was being slaughtered in three groups, as it is said, and they shall slaughter it, the entire assembly of the community of Israel, assembly, community, and Israel. When the first group entered, the courtyard was filled, they locked the doors of the courtyard. They blew the trumpets, straight, modulated, and straight. The priests were standing in rows and in their hands were silver and golden cups; one row only silver, one row only gold, they were not mixed. The cups had no flat bottoms lest they would be put down and the blood jellying.

MISHNAH: The Israel slaughters and the Cohen receives; he hands it to his colleague and the colleague to his colleague; he accepts the full [cup] and returns the empty one. The Cohen standing next to the altar pours it in one pouring in the direction of the foundations.

MISHNAH: When the first group left, the second entered; when the second left, the third entered. Like the arrangement for the first, so is the arrangement for second and third. They read the Hallel; when they finished they repeated, after they repeated they tripled, even though they never tripled. Rebbi Jehudah says, during the existence of a third group they never reached I am loving; truly the Eternal listened to my voice, since its people were few.

MISHNAH: As it is done on weekdays it is done on the Sabbath, only that the priests rinse the courtyard against the wish of the Sages. Rebbi Jehudah says, one was filling a cup of the mixture of blood and poured it in a single pouring on the altar, but the Sages did not agree with him.

MISHNAH: How does one hang and skins? Iron hooks were fixed in the walls and on the pillars where one hangs and skins. For anybody who does not find a place to hang and skin there were thin smooth rods; he puts one on his shoulder and another’s shoulder, and hangs and skins. Rebbi Eliezer says, if the Fourteenth falls on a Sabbath, he puts his arm on another’s shoulder who puts his arm on the first person’s shoulder, and hangs and skins.

MISHNAH: He tears it open and removes the parts which he puts in a tureen and burns on the altar. The first group left and sat on the Temple Mount, the second within the inner wall of the Temple Mount, the third stood at its place. When it got dark, they left and roasted their Pesaḥ.

MISHNAH: The following items about the Pesaḥ push aside the Sabbath: Its slaughter, and the pouring of its blood, and emptying its intestines, and the burning of its fat. But its roasting and washing of its intestines do not push aside. Carrying it, or bringing it from outside the Sabbath domain, or cutting its wart, do not push aside; Rebbi Eliezer says, they push aside.

MISHNAH: Rebbi Eliezer said, if slaughter which is work pushes the Sabbath aside, should not these, which are because of Sabbath rest, push the Sabbath aside? Rebbi Joshua said to him, holiday is a counter example, where He permitted the work but forbade because of Sabbath rest. Rebbi Eliezer answered whim, what is this, Joshua? What proof is option for obligation?

Rebbi Yose said, so should Rebbi Eliezer have embarrassed Rebbi Joshua. Does not the festival offering disprove according to your system, where they permitted the category of work but prohibited the category of Sabbath rest? He should have answered, no. If you are saying this about the festival offering about which one is not liable for extirpation, what can you say about Pesaḥ where one is liable for extirpation? He also could have objected as in the Mishnah: No, if you are saying this about the holiday about which one is not liable for extirpation, what can you say about Pesaḥ where one is liable for extirpation? It is as Rebbi Immi said, they were rich in answers. Or it may be as Rebbi Nassa said, like a man who has two arguments but he moves one of them.

MISHNAH: Rebbi Aqiba answered, sprinkling is a counter example, for it is a commandment and because of Sabbath rest does not push aside the Sabbath. So you should not wonder about these, even though they are commandments and because of Sabbath rest but shall not push aside the Sabbath. Rebbi Eliezer said to him, about this I am arguing. Since slaughter, which is work, pushes the Sabbath aside, sprinkling, which is because of Sabbath rest, shall push aside the Sabbath. Rebbi Aqiba said to him, or the other way. Since sprinkling, which is because of Sabbath rest, does not push aside the Sabbath, slaughter, which is work, shall not push the Sabbath aside. Rebbi Eliezer said to him, Aqiba! You uprooted what is written in the Torah, between the evenings, at its fixed time, whether on weekdays or on the Sabbath. He answered him, Rabbi, bring me a fixed time for these similar to the fixed time for slaughter. Rebbi Aqiba formulated a principle: Anything which can be done on Friday does not push the Sabbath aside. Slaughter which cannot be done on Friday pushes the Sabbath aside.

There, we have stated: “What is ‘far away’? From Modiin and farther away, and in the same distance in every direction, the words of Rebbi Aqiba. Rebbi Eliezer says, from the doorstep of the Temple courtyard and farther away.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Eliezer said this only not to make him liable for extirpation. Rebbi Eleazar said, the Mishnah implies this: “Rebbi Aqiba answered him, sprinkling is a counter example, for it is a commandment.” Is it a commandment to sprinkle? Explain it that his seventh day happened to be the Fourteenth which fell on a Sabbath. If it had been a weekday, one would have sprinkled on him, then he would have come, slaughtered his Pesaḥ, and entered and eaten it in the evening. Because it is a Sabbath and one does not sprinkle on him, it results that he his prevented from fulfilling the commandment. Rav Hoshaia said, explain it that his seventh day happened to be the Thirteenth which fell on a Sabbath. If it had been a weekday, one would have sprinkled on him, then the next day he would have come, slaughtered his Pesaḥ, and entered and eaten it in the evening. Because it is a Sabbath and one does not sprinkle on him, it results that he is prevented from fulfilling the commandment. It was found stated following the first [explanation].

MISHNAH: When does one bring a festival offering with it? When it comes on a weekday, in purity, and in small portions. When it comes on the Sabbath, in large portions, or in impurity, one does not bring a festival offering with it. The festival offering came from small cattle or bovines, from sheep or goats, from males and females, and may be eaten during two days and one night.

MISHNAH: He who slaughters the Pesaḥ not for its purpose on the Sabbath is for this liable for a purification sacrifice. For any other sacrifice which he slaughtered for the purpose of Pesaḥ, if they are not suitable he is liable, if suitable, Rebbi Eliezer declares him liable for a purification sacrifice but Rebbi Joshua declares not liable. Rebbi Eliezer said to him, since for Pesaḥ, which is permitted for its purpose, he is liable if he changed its purpose, sacrifices which are forbidden for their purpose, it should be logical that he be liable if he changed their purpose. Rebbi Joshua answered him, no. If you argue about Pesaḥ, which he changed to something forbidden, what can you infer about sacrifices which he changed to something permitted? Rebbi Eliezer said to him, public parts should prove it, which are permitted for their purpose and he who slaughters for their purpose is liable. Rebbi Joshua answered him, no. If you argue about public parts which are fixed in number, what can you infer about Pesaḥ which is not fixed in number? Rebbi Meïr says, also he who slaughters for the purpose of public parts is not liable.

HALAKHAH: The Mishnah if he realized that it was Pesaḥ but he slaughtered it for the purpose of well-being offerings. If he knew that it was a well-being offering but he slaughtered it for the purpose of an elevation offering. Rebbi Mana said, there is fulfilling of a commandment in his action. Rebbi Yose said, there is no fulfilling of a commandment in his action. Rams of the public which he thought were sheep and he slaughtered them for the purpose of rams, are they perhaps not counted as rams for the public? It was stated thus: Rams of the public which he thought were sheep and he slaughtered them for the purpose of rams, already are counted for the public as fulfillment of their obligation. The Mishnah applies if he thought it was Pesaḥ and he slaughtered it for the purpose of Pesaḥ. If he knew that it was a well-being sacrifice but thought to say that it is permitted to change well-being sacrifice into Pesaḥ, Rebbi Mana said, there is no fulfilling of a commandment in his action; Rebbi Yose said, there is fulfilling of a commandment in his action. It is reasonable following Rebbi Mana in the first case, following Rebbi Yose in the last.

HALAKHAH: The Mishnah if he realized that it was Pesaḥ but he slaughtered it for the purpose of well-being offerings. If he knew that it was a well-being offering but he slaughtered it for the purpose of an elevation offering. Rebbi Mana said, there is fulfilling of a commandment in his action. Rebbi Yose said, there is no fulfilling of a commandment in his action. Rams of the public which he thought were sheep and he slaughtered them for the purpose of rams, are they perhaps not counted as rams for the public? It was stated thus: Rams of the public which he thought were sheep and he slaughtered them for the purpose of rams, already are counted for the public as fulfillment of their obligation. The Mishnah applies if he thought it was Pesaḥ and he slaughtered it for the purpose of Pesaḥ. If he knew that it was a well-being sacrifice but thought to say that it is permitted to change well-being sacrifice into Pesaḥ, Rebbi Mana said, there is no fulfilling of a commandment in his action; Rebbi Yose said, there is fulfilling of a commandment in his action. It is reasonable following Rebbi Mana in the first case, following Rebbi Yose in the last.

“Rebbi Meïr says, also he who slaughters for the purpose of public parts is not liable.” Rebbi Eleazar said, the words of Rebbi Meïr: even a calf. You understand from here two things. You understand something which has no fixed number, or that is apt to being changed, only if the act is meritorious. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, if the act is meritorious, for example his sister-in-law which is menstruating and he slept with her. Rebbi Joḥanan said, if the act is [not] meritorious, for example two spits, one with slaughtered meat, the other with carcass meat, and he intended to eat from one but ate from the other. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “If he forgot and circumcised the one for Sunday on the Sabbath, Rebbi Eliezer makes him liable for a purification sacrifice but Rebbi Joshua declares him not liable.” In this case the act is not meritorious and Rebbi Joshua declares not liable. Samuel from Cappadocia said, the next day it is meritorious.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, it is Rebbi Meïr’s, since Rebbi Meïr said, for something where there is a commandment performed one is not liable, but if no commandment is performed whether he is liable is disputed. Rebbi Simeon says, where there is a commandment performed one is liable, but if no commandment is performed whether he is not liable is disputed. Rebbi Yose, Rebbi Joḥanan: The words of Rebbi Meïr are, on condition that it be a sheep without blemish, a yearling, and a well-being sacrifice fit to be changed into a Passover sacrifice. One understands from this three consequences. One understands something which is not a fixed number. And which is not usually exchanged. And doing something which fulfills a commandment. What means “something which is not a fixed number”? Rebbi Jeremiah wanted to say that the Torah did not specify how many Pesaḥ sacrifices should push the Sabbath aside in any given year. Rebbi Yose wanted to say, where you cannot determine the amount. When Rebbi Yose came to these “children in doubt” he used to say, Rebbi Jeremiah taught us correctly. Could you say that you cannot determine the amount? But the Torah did not specify how many Pesaḥ sacrifices should push the Sabbath aside in any given year. Rav Ḥisda said, one may explain the words of Rebbi Simeon if a group was there which did not slaughter. Rebbi Zeˋira said, the word of Rebbi Yannai implies that he forgot and circumcised the one for the Sabbath on Friday. It he circumcised him in the morning, Rebbi Zeˋira said that Rebbi Yannai was of the opinion that he is not liable. Rebbi Abba said, he is liable. In relation to what did Rebbi Yannai say it? He comes to tell you in which cases can there be a switching of children. In Rebbi Zeˋira’s opinion following Rebbi Yannai Rav followed Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yose, what Rav Ḥisda said follows Rebbi Simeon, and what Rebbi Yannai said follows Rebbi Meïr. Can one object anything between Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Simeon? Do we find a difference between Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Simeon about the remainder? How do you treat the babies in doubt? Like something which is a fixed amount or something which is not a fixed amount? If you are treating it like something which is a fixed amount, even if there is no (one) [other] baby to circumcise. If you are treating it like something which is not a fixed amount, only if there remains (one) [another] baby to circumcise. Come and see: If he anticipated his time he is not liable, if he delayed his time he is liable? Rav Ḥuna said, the Mishnah is the other way around, as it was stated: Rebbi Simeon said, Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Joshua did not disagree about one which was to be circumcised after the Sabbath if he circumcised him on the Sabbath that he is liable, but one who was to be circumcised before the Sabbath if he circumcised him on the Sabbath where Rebbi Eliezer makes him liable for a purification sacrifice and Rebbi Joshua declares him not liable. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, because of this objection it was difficult for Rebbi Yannai, only if he forgot and circumcised the one of the Sabbath on Friday. Rebbi Ada bar Ahawah said, these are the words of Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Simeon, but the words of Rebbi Yose [are]: Even if no commandment is performed he is not liable since he erred on behalf of a commandment.

MISHNAH: He is liable if he slaughtered it not for its eaters, or not for its subscribers, for the uncircumcised, or for the impure. He is not liable if for its eaters and not for its eaters, for its subscribers and not for its subscribers, for the circumcised and the uncircumcised, for the pure and the impure. If he slaughtered and it was found defective, he is liable. If he slaughtered and it was found internally tom, he is not liable. He is not liable if he slaughtered and it became known that the owners became disinterested in it, or they died, or they became impure, because he slaughtered with permission.

MISHNAH: How does one roast the Pesaḥ? A spit of pomegranate wood he sticks from its mouth to its buttocks and puts the hooves and its innards into it, the words of Rebbi Yose the Galilean. Rebbi Aqiba says, this is a kind of cooking; but one hangs them outside.

MISHNAH: One roasts the Pesaḥ neither on a spit nor on a grill. Rebbi Ṣadoq said, it happened that Rabban Gamliel said to his slave Tabi, go and roast us the Pesaḥ on a sacrificial hearth. If it touched the pottery of the tannur, he has to shave off its place. If some of its fluid fell on clay and returned, one has to remove this place. If some of its fluid fell on flour, one has to remove its place.

MISHNAH: If he basted it with heave oil, if there is a group of priests, they shall eat it. If of Israel, if it is raw he shall soak it, if roasted he has to peel off the outside. If he basted it with oil of Second Tithe, he may not charge the members of the group for it since one may not sell Second Tithe in Jerusalem.

So is the Mishnah: “One does not redeem Second Tithe in Jerusalem.”

MISHNAH: Five kinds are brought in impurity but are not eaten in impurity: The ˋOmer, and the Two Breads, and the shew-bread, and public well-being offerings, and the goats of New Moons. Pesaḥ which is brought in impurity is eaten since from the start this is what it is for.

MISHNAH: If the meat became impure while the fat is unchanged, he does not pour the blood. If the fat became impure while the meat is unchanged, he pours the blood. With sacrifices it is not so, but even if the meat became impure while the fat is unchanged, he pours the blood.

Rebbi Eleazar said, the Mishnah is about one “which comes in impurity from the start.” But if it came in purity and then became impure, it cannot be eaten in impurity. “If it was slaughtered in purity but then the public became impure, the blood shall be poured in purity but the meat not eaten in impurity.” (Should one not say the same for pouring?) [Rebbi La in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: It is Rebbi Nathan’s, as Rebbi Nathan said, one has fulfilled his duty by pouring without eating. “If it was slaughtered in purity but then the blood collected became impure, the blood may be poured in impurity but the meat may not be eaten in impurity.” Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Because of the bad impression, lest they say, we have seen a Pesaḥ brought in purity which was [poured] {eaten} in impurity. Then should not the blood be poured in impurity?] Lest they say, we have seen a Pesaḥ brought in purity for which it was poured in impurity. You have to end up saying that it is Rebbi Nathan’s. Rebbi Nathan agrees for a sick or an old person. Rebbi Nathan agrees for a group whose officiant became impure, that they are pushed to the Second Pesaḥ. Rebbi Nathan agrees for a group where a wart was found, that they are pushed to the Second Pesaḥ.

MISHNAH: If the public or a majority of it were impure or the Cohanim were impure and the public pure, it should be brought in impurity. If a minority of the public were impure, the pure people make the first and the impure the second.

MISHNAH: If blood was poured of a Pesaḥ when later it became known that it was impure, the diadem makes acceptable. An impurity of the body the diadem does not make acceptable since they said that for the nazir and the offerer of the Pesaḥ the diadem makes impurity of the blood acceptable but not impurity of the body. If the impurity was caused by impurity of the abyss, the diadem makes acceptable.

HALAKHAH: The Mishnah if it became impure after it fell into the vessel. But if it became impure when still higher it is as if he received water.

“What is a grave of the abyss? A corpse buried in stubble, straw, dust, or pebbles. But if it was buried in water, a dark spot, or rock crevices, it does not create a grave of the abyss.” The principle: Any place from where it can be removed creates a grave of the abyss; any place from where it cannot be removed does not create a grave of the abyss. Can stubbles and straw not be removed? Does the Mishnah not follow Rebbi Yose, since Rebbi Yose said, straw said to be disregarded is disregarded? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav Ḥisda: It is everybody’s opinion. What Rebbi Yose said, if he mixed it with dust. “There is straw which is treated like dust and dust which is treated like straw. Straw not to be removed is like dust; dust to be removed is like straw.” In the House of Rebbi Yannai they said: If he covered it with mats it is disregarded. Come and see: If he filled it with mats it is not disregarded, if he covered it with mats it is disregarded. If he filled it with branches of date palms it is problematic. Rebbi Zeriqan, Rebbi Immi, in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Even thin sheets.

MISHNAH: If it became impure whole or most of it, one burns it before the citadel on altar wood. If a minor part became impure or leftovers one burns in the courtyards or on their roofs on their own wood. The misers burn it before the citadel in order to profit from altar wood.

MISHNAH: Pesaḥ which left or which became impure has to be burned immediately. If the owners became impure or died it shall lose its shape and be brought to the place of burning. Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa says, this one also has to be burned immediately since it has no eaters.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: “A disqualification of the body [is piggul and] is immediately burned. [If the owners became impure or died it is] a disqualification of enabler and needs to lose its shape. Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah says so: “Pesaḥ which left or which became impure is a disqualification of the body and has to be burned immediately. If the owner became impure or died it is a disqualification of the enabler and it shall lose its shape.”

MISHNAH: Pesaḥ which left or which became impure has to be burned immediately. If the owners became impure or died it shall lose its shape and be brought to the place of burning. Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa says, this one also has to be burned immediately since it has no eaters.

MISHNAH: Anything eaten of a large bull shall be eaten of the soft lamb, including the ends of the shoulder bone and cartilage. He who breaks a bone of a pure Pesaḥ is whipped forty [lashes]; but he who leaves over of a pure or who breaks of an impure is not whipped forty [lashes].

HALAKHAH: What is the rule about soft sinews? Rebbi Joḥanan said, one subscribes to them; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, one does not subscribe to them. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Zeˋira: The argument of Rebbi Joḥanan is inverted; the argument of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish is inverted. As they disagreed about what is stated there: “The following have their hides treated like their flesh: Human skin, and the hides of domesticated pigs, Rebbi Yose says also of wild pigs. [The soft skin of camel’s hump, the soft skin of a calf’s head, the skin near the hooves, the skin of genitals, the skin of an embryo, the skin under the fat tail, and the skin of anaqa, koah, leta’ah, and homet lizards. Rebbi Jehudah says, a lizard is like a mole. In all cases, if one tanned them, or started to use them as working material, they are pure, except for human skin. Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri says, the “eight crawling animals” have hides.”] Rebbi Joḥanan said, this was only said as prohibition and regarding impurity, but for flogging it is hide. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, Rebbi stated a complete Mishnah, for prohibition, for flogging, for impurity. The reasoning of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish seems inverted. There, he treats it as flesh, but here, he does not treat it as meat. Rebbi Judah bar Pazi said, there is a difference, since there one refers to skin which in the end will become hard. This emphasizes that the reasoning of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish seems inverted! Since there, where in the end it will harden, he treats it as flesh, here where in the end it will not harden, not so much more? Rebbi Abun said, the reason of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish is: they shall eat the meat in that night, not sinews.

“But he who leaves over of a pure {Pesaḥ} or who breaks of an impure is not whipped forty {ashes}.” Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: The Mishnah if it came in impurity from the start. But if it came in purity and became impure it is as if coming in purity and one is whipped for its breaking.

MISHNAH: A limb which partially was taken out one cuts until he reaches the bone, and pares until he reaches the joint, where he cuts; but for sacrifices he cuts with a dagger since there breaking bones is not forbidden.. From the wing and inside it is like inside; from the wing and outside it is like outside. Windows and the thickness of the wall are like inside.

Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Jehudah: They did not sanctify under the wing in Jerusalem. Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rav Samuel bar Rav Isaac: That the sufferers from skin disease might find shelter in summer from the sun and in the rainy season from rain. Did they similarly not sanctify under the wing of the Temple Mount, that sufferers from gonorrhea and flux might find shelter in summer from the sun and in the rainy season from rain? The sufferer from skin disease has no place to find shelter; the sufferer from gonorrhea finds shelter in all of Jerusalem. Rebbi Joḥanan bar Marius in the name of Rebbi Phineas: Since we see that the rabbis take off their sandals under the wing of the Temple Mount, this implies that they did not sanctify under the wing of the Temple Mount. Rav asked the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya: What is the status of roofs in Jerusalem? He told him, since one uses as proverb: the Pesaḥ in an olive-sized bit and Hallel breaks the roof, this implies that the roofs of Jerusalem are sanctified. Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Miasha, Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac in the name of Rav: The roofs of Jerusalem are profane. But did we not state, “From the wing and inside it is like inside; from the wing and outside it is like outside”? Explain it that the Mishnah speaks about a roof surrounded by buildings forming a courtyard. But did we not state, “windows and the thickness of the wall are like inside”? Explain it again that the Mishnah speaks about a roof surrounded by buildings forming a courtyard. This parallels what Rebbi Aḥa said in the name of Rebbi Ḥinena: glacis and wall mourned, the wall and the ante-wall. If they sanctified the thickness of the wall, not so much more the window? Rebbi Aḥa said, it is necessary for the window on top of the wing. Even though you are saying that they did not sanctify under the wing of Jerusalem, they sanctified the window over the wing.

Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Jehudah: They did not sanctify under the wing in Jerusalem. Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rav Samuel bar Rav Isaac: That the sufferers from skin disease might find shelter in summer from the sun and in the rainy season from rain. Did they similarly not sanctify under the wing of the Temple Mount, that sufferers from gonorrhea and flux might find shelter in summer from the sun and in the rainy season from rain? The sufferer from skin disease has no place to find shelter; the sufferer from gonorrhea finds shelter in all of Jerusalem. Rebbi Joḥanan bar Marius in the name of Rebbi Phineas: Since we see that the rabbis take off their sandals under the wing of the Temple Mount, this implies that they did not sanctify under the wing of the Temple Mount. Rav asked the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya: What is the status of roofs in Jerusalem? He told him, since one uses as proverb: the Pesaḥ in an olive-sized bit and Hallel breaks the roof, this implies that the roofs of Jerusalem are sanctified. Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Miasha, Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac in the name of Rav: The roofs of Jerusalem are profane. But did we not state, “From the wing and inside it is like inside; from the wing and outside it is like outside”? Explain it that the Mishnah speaks about a roof surrounded by buildings forming a courtyard. But did we not state, “windows and the thickness of the wall are like inside”? Explain it again that the Mishnah speaks about a roof surrounded by buildings forming a courtyard. This parallels what Rebbi Aḥa said in the name of Rebbi Ḥinena: glacis and wall mourned, the wall and the ante-wall. If they sanctified the thickness of the wall, not so much more the window? Rebbi Aḥa said, it is necessary for the window on top of the wing. Even though you are saying that they did not sanctify under the wing of Jerusalem, they sanctified the window over the wing.

It was stated in the name of Rebbi Jehudah: the tunnels under the Temple were profane, the Temple roofs were sanctified. Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: A Mishnah says so, “there was a fireplace there, and an honorable bathroom. [What was its honor? If one found it locked, one knew that it was occupied, unlocked one knew that it was unoccupied.”] Rebbi Yose said, is excrement impure? Is it not simply cleanliness? But the following is it, “he leaves and goes in the walkway under the Temple, and lights were burning on both sides, until he comes to the place of immersion.” If it were sanctified he would have to go by the shortest way.

MISHNAH: Two groups which were eating in the same room, these are turning their faces in one direction while eating, and those are turning their faces in one direction while eating, and the samovar is in the middle. When the waiter stands to mix, he closes his mouth and turns his head unless he is near his own group and eats. But the newly-wed may turn aside her face and eat.

MISHNAH: A woman living in her husband’s house, and both her husband and her father slaughtered for her, should eat of her husband’s. If she went to her father’s house for the first holiday and both her father and her husband slaughtered for her, she may eat where she desires. An orphan for whom guardians slaughtered may eat where he desires. A slave of two owners may not eat from either of them. A person who is half slave and half freedman may not eat of his master’s.

Rebbi Zeˋira in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: A person may slaughter another’s Pesaḥ without his knowledge, but he cannot dedicate it without his knowledge. Rebbi Eleazar said, the Mishnah says so: “A woman living in her husband’s house, and both her father and her husband slaughtered for her, should eat of her husband’s.” Where do we hold? If giving instructions, normally a woman gives instructions saying, I want to be with my children. So not giving instructions. The Mishnah may be about giving instructions. There came Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan , the Mishnah is about giving instructions. Does this not disagree with Rebbi Eleazar, since Rebbi Eleazar said, a person may slaughter another’s Pesaḥ without his knowledge, but he may not choose it without his knowledge? There is a difference between Pesaḥ and a purification sacrifice. If a Pesaḥ grows it may be used to satisfy an obligation; a purification sacrifice if it grows may not be used to satisfy an obligation.

Rebbi Zeˋira in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: A person may slaughter another’s Pesaḥ without his knowledge, but he cannot dedicate it without his knowledge. Rebbi Eleazar said, the Mishnah says so: “A woman living in her husband’s house, and both her father and her husband slaughtered for her, should eat of her husband’s.” Where do we hold? If giving instructions, normally a woman gives instructions saying, I want to be with my children. So not giving instructions. The Mishnah may be about giving instructions. There came Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan , the Mishnah is about giving instructions. Does this not disagree with Rebbi Eleazar, since Rebbi Eleazar said, a person may slaughter another’s Pesaḥ without his knowledge, but he may not choose it without his knowledge? There is a difference between Pesaḥ and a purification sacrifice. If a Pesaḥ grows it may be used to satisfy an obligation; a purification sacrifice if it grows may not be used to satisfy an obligation.

Rebbi Zeˋira in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: A person may slaughter another’s Pesaḥ without his knowledge, but he cannot dedicate it without his knowledge. Rebbi Eleazar said, the Mishnah says so: “A woman living in her husband’s house, and both her father and her husband slaughtered for her, should eat of her husband’s.” Where do we hold? If giving instructions, normally a woman gives instructions saying, I want to be with my children. So not giving instructions. The Mishnah may be about giving instructions. There came Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan , the Mishnah is about giving instructions. Does this not disagree with Rebbi Eleazar, since Rebbi Eleazar said, a person may slaughter another’s Pesaḥ without his knowledge, but he may not choose it without his knowledge? There is a difference between Pesaḥ and a purification sacrifice. If a Pesaḥ grows it may be used to satisfy an obligation; a purification sacrifice if it grows may not be used to satisfy an obligation.

“An orphan for whom guardians slaughtered may eat where he desires.” The Mishnah refers to an underage orphan. But an adult orphan is like one who subscribed to two Pesaḥim; as Rebbi Ḥiyya stated, one who subscribed to two Pesaḥim eats from the one which was slaughtered first. Rebbi Yose says, the Mishnah says so, “if he slaughtered a kid goat and a lamb, one eats from the first.”

“An orphan for whom guardians slaughtered may eat where he desires.” The Mishnah refers to an underage orphan. But an adult orphan is like one who subscribed to two Pesaḥim; as Rebbi Ḥiyya stated, one who subscribed to two Pesaḥim eats from the one which was slaughtered first. Rebbi Yose says, the Mishnah says so, “if he slaughtered a kid goat and a lamb, one eats from the first.”

“A slave of two owners may not eat from either of them.” Rebbi Yose said, his master has no right to say, it is impossible that you should be counted for a Pesaḥ, but he may say to him, you may not be counted for this one, only for that one. Sometimes he is counted for three Pesaḥim simultaneously. How is this? A slave of two owners must subscribe to a Pesaḥ. If one of them freed his part, he has to subscribe to another Pesaḥ. If both of them freed, he has to subscribe to yet another Pesaḥ. Samuel bar Abba asked, may the slave eat from all three of them? If you are saying that the slave may not eat from all three of them, then he should not be able to subscribe to a Pesaḥ, since perhaps his master might want to free him and it turns out that an invalid dedication is mixed up in the offering. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said that Rebbi Zeˋira asked, may the owner fulfill his obligation by the slave’s dedication? Is that not a Mishnah: “One says to his slave, go and slaughter the Pesaḥ for me.” The Mishnah on the instruction of his master, what is problematic for him not on the instruction of his master.

“A slave of two owners may not eat from either of them.” Rebbi Yose said, his master has no right to say, it is impossible that you should be counted for a Pesaḥ, but he may say to him, you may not be counted for this one, only for that one. Sometimes he is counted for three Pesaḥim simultaneously. How is this? A slave of two owners must subscribe to a Pesaḥ. If one of them freed his part, he has to subscribe to another Pesaḥ. If both of them freed, he has to subscribe to yet another Pesaḥ. Samuel bar Abba asked, may the slave eat from all three of them? If you are saying that the slave may not eat from all three of them, then he should not be able to subscribe to a Pesaḥ, since perhaps his master might want to free him and it turns out that an invalid dedication is mixed up in the offering. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said that Rebbi Zeˋira asked, may the owner fulfill his obligation by the slave’s dedication? Is that not a Mishnah: “One says to his slave, go and slaughter the Pesaḥ for me.” The Mishnah on the instruction of his master, what is problematic for him not on the instruction of his master.

MISHNAH: One says to his slave, go and slaughter the Pesaḥ for me. If he slaughtered a kid goat, it should be eaten; if he slaughtered a lamb, it should be eaten. If he slaughtered kid goat and lamb, one eats from the first. If he forgot what his master had told him, what can he do? He shall slaughter a kid goat and a lamb and say, if my master said to me a kid goat, the kid goat is his and the lamb mine, but if my master said to me a lamb, the lamb is his and the kid goat mine. If his master had forgotten what he told him, both shall be brought to the place of burning but they are free from bringing the Second Pesaḥ.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: One who simultaneously subscribed to two Pesaḥim eats from the one which was slaughtered first. Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah implies this; “if he slaughtered kid goat and lamb, one eats from the first.” Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Joḥanan both are saying, this is Rebbi Nathan’s since Rebbi Nathan said, one fulfills his obligation by pouring without eating. Rebbi Ḥizqiah in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal: Explain it that the master forgot between slaughter and pouring. Rebbi Ḥizqiah said, one of the rabbis objected; some say that it was himself: Did we not state, “If he forgot what his master had told him, he shall slaughter a kid goat and a lamb”?

MISHNAH: If one says to his children, I am going to slaughter the Pesaḥ in the name of whoever of you will come first to Jerusalem. When the first of them entered with his head and most of his body, he acquired his part and acquires for his siblings with him. Forever one subscribes to it as long as there is the volume of an olive for each participant. One subscribes to it or cancels until it has been slaughtered; Rebbi Simeon says until the blood is poured.

MISHNAH: If somebody lets others subscribe to his part, they are empowered to give him his part, so that he eats of his and they eat of theirs.

Rav Huna said, if somebody dedicated his Pesaḥ and said, on condition that nobody else subscribe with me, nobody else can subscribe with him. If he dedicated it without specification, any who join are its subscribers. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Zeˋira: Does the Mishnah say so? “If thehouse be less, this teaches that they may continuously diminish, on condition that there always be one of the first group and one of the second group, the words of Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Yose says, either from the first or from the second, if only the Pesaḥ not be left alone.” If you are saying that any who join are its subscribers, then the members of the first group are the members of the second group. What is the difference between them? If he dedicated his Pesaḥ, withdrew from it but another person subscribed to it. In the opinion of Rav Ḥuna it is qualified, in the opinion of Rebbi Zeˋira disqualified. In the opinion of Rav Ḥuna it is dedication by an individual and subject to the laws of substitution; in the opinion of Rebbi Zeˋira it is dedication by partners and dedication of partners is not subject to the laws of substitution. If a hundred people subscribed to it simultaneously, Rav Ḥuna said, if there is the volume [of an olive for each of them], it is qualified, otherwise disqualified. Rebbi Zeˋira said, as long as there is the volume of an olive for each of them, it is qualified, otherwise disqualified. And it was stated thus: “If they subscribed and added subscribers, as long as there is the volume of an olive for each of them, it is qualified, otherwise disqualified.”

MISHNAH: For a sufferer from gonorrhea after two episodes one slaughters on the seventh {day}, if he had three episodes one slaughters for him on the eighth. Similarly for a woman watching day for day one slaughters on the second, if she had episodes on two consecutive days one slaughters on the third; but for the sufferer from flux one slaughters on the eighth.

MISHNAH: One slaughters for the deep mourner, and one who digs out a collapsed building, and one who was promised that he would be freed from jail, the sick person or the old who are able to eat the volume of an olive. But for all of these one does not slaughter for themselves lest the Pesaḥ become disqualified. Therefore if a disqualification should occur they are not liable for the Second Pesaḥ except for one who digs out a collapsed building who from the start could expect to be impure.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun, Abba bar bar Hana in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan : The Mishnah if he was jailed by Jews. But if he was jailed by gentiles, whose mouth speaks vanity and whose oath is false oath. If he was held outside of Jerusalem, but if he was held in Jerusalem even if they did not promise it is as if they had promised.

MISHNAH: One does not slaughter the Pesaḥ for a single person, the words of Rebbi Jehudah; but Rebbi Yose permits. One does not slaughter for a group, even of a hundred, if none of them can eat the volume of an olive, and one does not form a group of women, slaves, and minors.

MISHNAH: The deep mourner immerses himself and eats his Pesaḥ in the evening but not [other] sancta. He who hears about a death or for whom bones were collected immerses himself and eats sancta. A proselyte who converted on Passover eve, the House of Shammai say that he immerses himself and eats his Pesaḥ in the evening, but the House of Hillel say that he who separates from the prepuce is like one who separates from a grave.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, the Mishnah is about one who newly became a deep mourner between slaughter and pouring. But if he became a deep mourner after atonement it already was accepted.

MISHNAH: He who was impure or on a far trip and did not make the First shall make the Second. If in error or by force he did not make the First shall make the Second. If this is so, why was it said impure or on a far trip? Because these are not liable for extirpation but those are liable for extirpation.

HALAKHAH: “He who was impure,” etc. Impure by a corpse, I not only have impure by a corpse, from where forced or in error? The verse says, every man, [it added]. So far following Rebbi Aqiba; following Rebbi Ismael? Rebbi Ismael stated, impure by a corpse is not equal to a far-away trip, nor is a far-away trip equal to impure by a corpse, what is common to them is that he did not make the First and shall make the Second; also I am adding those forced or in error who did not make the First that they shall make the Second. Intentional from where? Rebbi Zeˋira said, but the man, to add the one acting intentionally. We have stated; “if in error or by force;” Rebbi Ḥiyya stated, “if in error, or by force, or intentional.” Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah implies this, “because these are not liable for extirpation but those are liable for extirpation;” who is subject to extirpation if not intentional?

MISHNAH: What is a far-away trip? From Modiˋin and farther away, and the same distance in every direction, the words of Rebbi Aqiba. Rebbi Eliezer says, outside the doorstep of the Temple Courtyard. Rebbi Yose said, therefore there is a dot on the ה to indicate not that it be really far but outside the doorstep of the Temple Courtyard.

MISHNAH: What is the difference between the First and the Second Pesaḥ? The First is forbidden [leavened matter] to be seen or found. For the Second, leavened matter and mazzah are with him in the house. The First needs Hallel when it is eaten, but the Second does not need Hallel when it is eaten. Both need Hallel when it is offered, and they are eaten roasted, with unleavened bread and bitter herbs, and push the Sabbath aside.

MISHNAH: What is the difference between the First and the Second Pesaḥ? The First is forbidden [leavened matter] to be seen or found. For the Second, leavened matter and mazzah are with him in the house. The First needs Hallel when it is eaten, but the Second does not need Hallel when it is eaten. Both need Hallel when it is offered, and they are eaten roasted, with unleavened bread and bitter herbs, and push the Sabbath aside.

MISHNAH: What is the difference between Passover in Egypt and the Passover of generations? The Pesaḥ in Egypt was bought on the Tenth, and needed sprinkling with a bunch of hyssop on the lintel and two door-posts, and was eaten in a hurry, during one night. But Passover of generations is all of seven [days].

MISHNAH: Rebbi Joshua said, I have heard that the substitute of a Pesaḥ is sacrificed and that the substitute of a Pesaḥ is not sacrificed, and I cannot explain it. Rebbi Aqiba said, I shall explain it. The Pesaḥ which is found before the time of slaughtering the Pesaḥ shall graze until it becomes unusable, then be sold, and for the money one shall bring well-being offerings; the same holds for its substitute. After the time of slaughtering the Pesaḥ, it shall be brought as well-being offering; the same holds for its substitute.

MISHNAH: If he dedicates a female as his Pesaḥ or a two year old male, it shall graze until it becomes unusable, then be sold, and the monies given for voluntary sacrifices. If he dedicates his Pesaḥ and dies, his son may not bring it after him as Pesaḥ but as well-being offering.

HALAKHAH: The Mishnah after propitiation, following {neither Rebbi nor Rebbi Simeon, as it was stated: “Before Passover it shall graze until it becomes unusable, then be sold, and he shall bring for its value a Pesaḥ. After Passover it shall be brought as well-being sacrifice. Rebbi Simeon says, before Passover it shall be sold without a defect, after Passover it shall be brought as well-being sacrifice.” Did we not understand that “the body of any {animal} due to be sacrificed as Pesaḥ is not offered as a well-being sacrifice”? Explain it if he dedicated coins.

MISHNAH: If a Pesaḥ was mingled with sacrifices, all of them shall graze until they become unusable, then be sold, and for the value of the best among them he shall bring one of each kind and lose the difference on his account. If it was mingled with firstlings, Rebbi Simeon says, if it is a company of priests, they shall eat.

MISHNAH: A group whose Pesaḥ was lost and they said to one of them go, and search for it, and slaughter for us. He went, found, and slaughtered, and they bought and slaughtered. If his was slaughtered first, he eats of his, and they eat with him; but if theirs was slaughtered first, they eat of theirs, and he eats of his. If it is not known which one was slaughtered first, or they slaughtered simultaneously, they eat of theirs, but he does not eat with them. His is brought to be burned, and he is not liable for a Second Pesaḥ. If he told them, if I would tarry, slaughter for me; he went, found, and slaughtered, and they bought and slaughtered. If theirs was slaughtered first, they eat of theirs, and he eats with them; but if his was slaughtered first, he eats of his and they eat of theirs. If it is not known which one was slaughtered first, or they slaughtered simultaneously, he eats of his, but they he may not eat with him; and theirs is brought to be burned, but they are not liable for a Second Pesaḥ. If he told them, if I would tarry, go and slaughter for me; he went, found, and slaughtered, and they bought and slaughtered. If theirs was slaughtered first, they eat of theirs, and he eats with them; but if his was slaughtered first, he eats of his and they eat of theirs. If it is not known which one was slaughtered first, or they slaughtered simultaneously, they eat of theirs, and he may not eat with them; and his is brought to be burned, but he is not liable for a Second Pesaḥ. If he said to them and they said to him, all of them eat of the first. If he did not talk to them nor did they talk to him, they are not responsible for one another. Two groups whose Pesaḥim were commingled, each of them draws one for them. One of each group joins the other and they declare: If this Pesaḥ is ours, your hand is removed from yours and you are subscribing to ours, and if this Pesaḥ is yours, our hand is removed from ours and we are subscribing to yours. The same holds for five groups of five members each, or ten of ten, one exchanges members of each group and so they declare.

MISHNAH: If the Pesaḥim of two people were intermingled, each of them takes one, and each one invites another from the street to subscribe with him. One of each group joins the other, and each one declares as follows: If this Pesaḥ be mine, your hand is removed from yours and you are subscribing to mine, and if this Pesaḥ be yours, my hand is removed from mine and I am subscribing to yours.

MISHNAH: In the afternoon of Passover Eve close to the time of afternoon prayers one should not eat until it gets dark. And even the poorest person in Israel should not eat until he lies on a couch. One shall not give him less than four cups of wine, even from the communal tray.

HALAKHAH: “In the afternoon of Passover Eve close to the time of afternoon prayers,” etc. The Mishnah is Rebbi Jehudah’s, as it was stated: “On Sabbath Eve starting at the time of afternoon prayers one should not taste anything until nightfall in order to enter the Sabbath with an appetite, the words of Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Yose says, he continues eating until he finishes.” “One interrupts for the Sabbath, the words of Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Yose says, one does not interrupt.” “It happened that Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel and Rebbi Yose ben Halaphta were lying on couches in Acco on Sabbath Eve, and in the meantime the Sabbath became holy. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said to Rebbi Yose ben Halaphta, do you want to interrupt for the Sabbath? He answered him, the entire day you preferred my words over those of Rebbi Jehudah, and now you are preferring the words of Rebbi Jehudah over mine, also to rape the queen in my palace? He said to him, therefore we shall not interrupt, that practice in Israel should not be fixed following R. Jehudah. They did not leave there before they fixed practice following Rebbi Yose.” Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel: These are the words of Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Yose. But the words of the Sages, one spreads a cloth and makes qiddush. May one eat kinds of cookies? May one eat kinds of dried fruit? Rebbi Yudan the Prince bathed and became thirsty. He asked Rebbi Mana, since I am thirsty, may I drink? He told him, Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: A person may not taste anything before nightfall.

MISHNAH: One mixes him the first cup. The House of Shammai say, he pronounces the benediction of the day and after that he pronounces the benediction over the wine. But the House of Hillel say, he pronounces the benediction over the wine and after that he pronounces the benediction of the day.

MISHNAH: They bring before him vegetables and Romaine lettuce. One dips Romaine lettuce, until he comes to filling the bread, when one brings before him mazzah, and Romaine lettuce, and haroset, and two dishes, even though haroset is not an obligation; Rebbi Eliezer ben Rebbi Sadoq says, it is an obligation. In the Temple one brings before him the body of the Pesaḥ.

HALAKHAH: The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: One has to dip Romaine lettuce twice. Rebbi Zeˋira in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: One need not dip Romaine lettuce twice. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, if he did not dip the first time, he has to dip the second time. The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish; “On all other nights we dip once, this night twice.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish is of one opinion with Bar Qappara; the Mishnah disagrees with Bar Qappara: On all other nights we dip with bread, but here we dip it by itself. The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan, one fulfills his obligation with mazzah, whether he intended it or did not intend. But here since he was lying on a couch, the presumption is that he intended. Rebbi Jeremiah objected before Rebbi Zeˋira, does not the Mishnah disagree with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish? “one brings before him mazzah, and Romaine lettuce, and haroset, … even though haroset is not an obligation.” Romaine lettuce is an obligation. He said to him, since Rav dips with beets.

HALAKHAH: The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: One has to dip Romaine lettuce twice. Rebbi Zeˋira in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: One need not dip Romaine lettuce twice. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, if he did not dip the first time, he has to dip the second time. The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish; “On all other nights we dip once, this night twice.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish is of one opinion with Bar Qappara; the Mishnah disagrees with Bar Qappara: On all other nights we dip with bread, but here we dip it by itself. The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan, one fulfills his obligation with mazzah, whether he intended it or did not intend. But here since he was lying on a couch, the presumption is that he intended. Rebbi Jeremiah objected before Rebbi Zeˋira, does not the Mishnah disagree with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish? “one brings before him mazzah, and Romaine lettuce, and haroset, … even though haroset is not an obligation.” Romaine lettuce is an obligation. He said to him, since Rav dips with beets.

HALAKHAH: The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: One has to dip Romaine lettuce twice. Rebbi Zeˋira in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: One need not dip Romaine lettuce twice. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, if he did not dip the first time, he has to dip the second time. The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish; “On all other nights we dip once, this night twice.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish is of one opinion with Bar Qappara; the Mishnah disagrees with Bar Qappara: On all other nights we dip with bread, but here we dip it by itself. The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan, one fulfills his obligation with mazzah, whether he intended it or did not intend. But here since he was lying on a couch, the presumption is that he intended. Rebbi Jeremiah objected before Rebbi Zeˋira, does not the Mishnah disagree with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish? “one brings before him mazzah, and Romaine lettuce, and haroset, … even though haroset is not an obligation.” Romaine lettuce is an obligation. He said to him, since Rav dips with beets.

HALAKHAH: The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: One has to dip Romaine lettuce twice. Rebbi Zeˋira in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: One need not dip Romaine lettuce twice. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, if he did not dip the first time, he has to dip the second time. The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish; “On all other nights we dip once, this night twice.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish is of one opinion with Bar Qappara; the Mishnah disagrees with Bar Qappara: On all other nights we dip with bread, but here we dip it by itself. The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan, one fulfills his obligation with mazzah, whether he intended it or did not intend. But here since he was lying on a couch, the presumption is that he intended. Rebbi Jeremiah objected before Rebbi Zeˋira, does not the Mishnah disagree with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish? “one brings before him mazzah, and Romaine lettuce, and haroset, … even though haroset is not an obligation.” Romaine lettuce is an obligation. He said to him, since Rav dips with beets.

MISHNAH: One mixes him the second cup, and here the son asks. If the son does not know how to ask, his father instructs him: What is the difference between this night and all other nights? For every night we dip once, but this night we dip twice. For every night we eat leavened and unleavened bread, but this night only unleavened. For in all other nights we eat meat roasted, preserved, or cooked, but in this night only roasted. According to the son’s understanding the father teaches him. He starts with ignominy and ends with praise and explains from “a lost Aramean was my father” until he finishes the paragraph. Rabban Gamliel used to say, anybody who did not teach these three words on Passover did not fulfill his duty, Pesaḥ, mazzah, and bitter herbs. Pesaḥ because the Omnipresent passed over the houses of our forefathers in Egypt, mazzah because our forefathers were freed from Egypt. Bitter herbs because the Egyptians embittered the lives of our forefathers in Egypt. In every generation a person is required to see himself as if he himself had gone out of Egypt, as it was said, you shall tell your son on that day, this is on account of what the Eternal did for me when I left Egypt. Therefore we are required to thank, sing His praise, laud, glorify, exalt, praise in perpetuity, to glorify, Him who did all these miracles for us and led us from slavery to freedom; let us say before Him Hallelujah.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Ḥiyya stated “The Torah spoke about Four Children, a wise child, a wicked child, a stupid child, and a child who does not know how to ask. What does the wise child say? What are the testimonials, the ordinances, and the laws, that the Eternal, our God, commanded us? Also you shall tell him, with a strong hand did the Eternal lead us out of Egypt, the house of slaves. What does the wicked son say? What does this service mean to you? What is this exertion which you impose on us every (moment) [year]? Since he excluded himself from the community, also you shall tell him, because of this did the Eternal do for me when I left Egypt. For me, He did it, for that man He did not do it. If that man had been in Egypt, he would not have been worthy ever to be redeemed. What does the stupid child say? What is this? Tell him the rules of Passover, that one may not follow the Pesaḥἐπὶ κῶμον. What means ἐπὶ κῶμον? That one not leave one company and join another company. With the child who does not know how to ask, you have to begin and initiate with him.” Rebbi Yose said, that is what the Mishnah says, “if the son does not know how to ask, his father instructs him.”

MISHNAH: How far does he say? The House of Shammai say, up to a happy mother of children. But the House of Hillel are saying, up to the pebble into a source of water, and he finishes with “redemption.” Rebbi Tarphon says, “Who freed us and freed our forefathers from Egypt and let us reach this night”, and does not seal. Rebbi Aqiba says, “so Eternal, our God, let us reach other festivals coming towards us in peace, happy in the rebuilding of Your city, enjoying Your service, and the renewal of Your Temple. There may we eat from the Pesaḥ and well-being offerings whose blood will reach to the wall of Your altar for pleasure and we shall thank You for our redemption. Praise to You, Eternal, Who redeems Israel.”

MISHNAH: One mixes him the third cup, he says Grace. The fourth, over which he finishes the Hallel and recites the benediction of the song. Between these cups, he may drink if he wants to drink; between the third and the fourth he may not drink. After the Pesaḥ one may not serve afiqoman.

MISHNAH: If part of them slept, they may eat; if all of them, they may not eat Rebbi Yose says, if they were sleepy, they may eat, if they slept they may not eat. The Pesaḥ after midnight makes hands impure. Piggul and leftover make the hands impure. If he recited the benediction for the Pesaḥ it exempted that of the family sacrifice; the one for the family sacrifice does not exempt the one for the Pesaḥ, the words of Rebbi Ismael. Rebbi Aqiba said, neither one exempts the other.

MISHNAH: Seven days before the Day of Atonement one isolates the High Priest from his house to the Parhedrin lodge and one prepares another Cohen because he might become disqualified. Rebbi Jehudah says, one also prepares for him another wife, since maybe his wife would die, for it is said, he shall atone for himself and his house, his house means his wife. The Sages said to him, in this case the procedure never ends.

There, we have stated: “These take away and those put down. And the hand of one is close to the hand of the other, for it is said, before Me always.” The Mishnah is Rebbi Meïr’s. But according to Rebbi Joḥanan does Rebbi Meïr agree that if they removed the old set in the morning and arranged the new set in the evening this is also “always”. “Rebbi Yose says, also these may remove and those put down; for this also is ‘always’.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Yose inferred this from the sitting of Aaron and his sons. As you are saying, at the sitting of Aaron and his sons it was necessary that the day deliver to the night and the night deliver to the day, so here it was necessary that the day deliver to the night and the night deliver to the day. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Yose said, it was sufficient that the day deliver to the night. What does Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Joseph say about the sitting of Aaron and his sons?, Since if there, where it is written “always”, you are saying that it was sufficient that the day deliver to the night, here where it is not written “always” not so much more? You have to say that in Rebbi Joḥanan’s opinion there were seven erections and six dismantlings. In Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Joseph’s opinion here were fourteen erections and thirteen dismantlings. It was stated: “All seven days of initiation did Moses anoint the Tabernacle, erected and dismantled it, and performed in it the services. On the eighth day, he erected it and did not dismantle. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah said, on the eighth day also he erected, anointed, and dismantled.” Rebbi Zeˋira said, this implies that erection in the night is invalid for service during the day. You have to say that in Rebbi Joḥanan’s opinion following Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah there were fourteen erections and thirteen dismantlings. In Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Joseph’s opinion following Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah there were 21 erections and 20 dismantlings.

And from where that he was asked in eight? Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan : And Aaron’s holy garments shall be for his descendants [in his stead]. Why does the verse say, in his stead? For greatness after him. And from where that he officiated in eight? Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan : And Aaron’s holy garments shall be for his descendants. Why does the verse say, in his stead? For sanctity after him. Rebbi Jonah said to him, I was with you; he did not say “officiated” but “was asked”. [In how many was he asked?] Rav Hoshaia brought a Mishnah of Bar Qappara from the South which stated: He officiates neither in the eight of a High Priest nor in the four of a common priest. Rebbi Abba said, it would be logical that he officiate in four. Why did they say that he did not officiate? Lest people say, we saw a High Priest who sometimes officiated in four like a simple priest. Rebbi Jonah said, would he not officiate inside and would he not be asked outside? Does one err between inside and outside? But did Rebbi Tarphon, the father of all of Israel, not err between blowing for assembly and the blowing for a sacrifice? As it is written: The descendants of Aaron, the priests, shall blow the trumpets, blameless ones, not with bodily defects, the words of Rebbi Aqiba. Rebbi Tarphon said to him, I would hit my sons if I did not see my mother’s brother, lame in one of his legs, standing in the Temple court with his trumpet in his hand and blowing! Rebbi Aqiba answered him, Rebbi, maybe you saw him only at the time of assembly; but I was saying, at the time of sacrifices. Rebbi Tarphon said to him, I would hit my sons but you did not deviate right or left. I am the one who heard but I could not explain. You derive it and agree with tradition. Therefore, anybody who separates from you is as if he separated himself from his life.

The priest shall atone who was anointed. Since the entire chapter is said about Aaron, from where to include another priest? The verse says, who was anointed; with the anointing oil. From where the one clothed in multiple garb? The verse says, who was inducted into office. And from where another who was appointed? The verse says, the priest shall atone. How is he being appointed? The rabbis of Caesarea in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Joseph, by mouth. Rebbi Zeˋira said, this implies that one may ordain Elders by word of mouth. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada said, a Mishnah says so: “Recant the four things that you are used to say and we shall make you president of the Court for Israel.”

MISHNAH: All seven days he pours the blood, and burns the incense, and cleans the lights, and brings head and feet to the altar. On any other day, if he wants to sacrifice he sacrifices since the High Priest is first in line to sacrifice his part and to take his part.

MISHNAH: One sends him Elders from the Elders of the Court; they read before him the Order of the Day and say to him, Sir High Priest, read yourself with your mouth, maybe you forgot, or maybe you never learned. In the morning of the eve of the Day of Atonement one makes him stand at the Eastern Gate and brings before him oxen, and he-goats, and sheep, so he should recognize and be used to the service.

MISHNAH: All of the seven days one does not prevent him from food and drink. On the Eve of the Day of Atonement one does not allow him to eat much because food induces sleep.

MISHNAH: The Elders of the Court hand him over to the Elders of the priesthood; they lead him to the upper floor of the house of Eutinoos They adjure him; this finishes their task and they leave. They say to him, Sir High Priest, we are the agents of the Court, and you are our agent and the Court’s agent. We adjure you by Him Who let His Name dwell in this House that you will not change anything of all we told you. He turns aside and cries, and they turn aside and cry.